Your stuff on these cases continues to be my goto for commentary and information.
The bottom line is the word "insurrection" was chosen on Jan 6, and repeated continuously by the Dems and their lapdog hack media, for a specific reason.
This reason is playing out in the courts and, for the good of the rest of us, must be rejected by SCCOTUS
Your excellent writings on this matter have reassured me. I saw the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to rule on it, and immediately wondered, are they just passing the buck here? Maybe because they are anxious to begin their Christmas festivities? Or are they disgusted at the politicalization of the legal system? In any case, I sure hope you’re right that this will end badly for the Democratics - they deserve it!
As I wrote at the time, Smith's attempt to leapfrog the appellate courts was always dubious.
The appellate court rulings invariably become key substance of Supreme Court decisions. Much of the Supreme Court's reasoning revolves around points made by the appellate court.
But even beyond that, as Jonathan Turley points out, Smith's petition for certiorari points to a certain anxiety about the trial date being maintained where it is, just before Super Tuesday. This is an odd priority for Smith's case, because even if Trump is convicted, that conviction by itself does not bar Trump from the ballot, nor even from being elected and serving as President. In theory, a later trial date works as well as an earlier one.
Instead, Trump's motion to dismiss is now in the appellate court. That will probably receive first a 3-judge panel, and then an en banc hearing of the entire court, after which it will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court (either Trump or Smith are going to be greatly disappointed by the appellate court ruling and are sure to appeal when that happens).
The likely view of the Supreme Court's decision is that they simply decline to get manipulated into jumping prematurely into the appeals process. Trump's motion to dismiss is almost sure to land in their laps anyway. They probably want it to happen later rather than sooner.
It's how this plays out in the context of the Colorado case that is intriguing. There's also another case that has just received certiorari that touches directly on some of the charges Smith has made against Trump. Smith is now sitting on the sidelines while the Supreme Court ponders several key elements of his case against Trump.
Like it or not, Smith has a Constitutional tiger by the tail and no way to let go. And the Democrats are holding on right next to him.
There is so much to take in with all these “charges” that it can be confusing. Thank you for your excellent summary of the radical lefts tool, “Jackal,” and their persecution of a political opponent.
So much hatred in these people. It’s sad.
This is the kind of stuff that happens under a tyrannical communist hierarchy.
Your stuff on these cases continues to be my goto for commentary and information.
The bottom line is the word "insurrection" was chosen on Jan 6, and repeated continuously by the Dems and their lapdog hack media, for a specific reason.
This reason is playing out in the courts and, for the good of the rest of us, must be rejected by SCCOTUS
Your excellent writings on this matter have reassured me. I saw the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to rule on it, and immediately wondered, are they just passing the buck here? Maybe because they are anxious to begin their Christmas festivities? Or are they disgusted at the politicalization of the legal system? In any case, I sure hope you’re right that this will end badly for the Democratics - they deserve it!
As I wrote at the time, Smith's attempt to leapfrog the appellate courts was always dubious.
The appellate court rulings invariably become key substance of Supreme Court decisions. Much of the Supreme Court's reasoning revolves around points made by the appellate court.
But even beyond that, as Jonathan Turley points out, Smith's petition for certiorari points to a certain anxiety about the trial date being maintained where it is, just before Super Tuesday. This is an odd priority for Smith's case, because even if Trump is convicted, that conviction by itself does not bar Trump from the ballot, nor even from being elected and serving as President. In theory, a later trial date works as well as an earlier one.
Instead, Trump's motion to dismiss is now in the appellate court. That will probably receive first a 3-judge panel, and then an en banc hearing of the entire court, after which it will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court (either Trump or Smith are going to be greatly disappointed by the appellate court ruling and are sure to appeal when that happens).
The likely view of the Supreme Court's decision is that they simply decline to get manipulated into jumping prematurely into the appeals process. Trump's motion to dismiss is almost sure to land in their laps anyway. They probably want it to happen later rather than sooner.
It's how this plays out in the context of the Colorado case that is intriguing. There's also another case that has just received certiorari that touches directly on some of the charges Smith has made against Trump. Smith is now sitting on the sidelines while the Supreme Court ponders several key elements of his case against Trump.
Like it or not, Smith has a Constitutional tiger by the tail and no way to let go. And the Democrats are holding on right next to him.
There is so much to take in with all these “charges” that it can be confusing. Thank you for your excellent summary of the radical lefts tool, “Jackal,” and their persecution of a political opponent.
So much hatred in these people. It’s sad.
This is the kind of stuff that happens under a tyrannical communist hierarchy.